Slashdot Mirror
No 3G for HP Until 2007
An anonymous reader writes to tell us CNet is reporting that HP will not be bringing 3G support to any of their new 'smart phones' until at least 2007. From the article: "[HP] cites the costs associated with the service, coupled with the fact that 3G's killer app -- TV and video streaming -- isn't yet viable on mobile phones as the primary reasons for its decision. '3G is still only occupying 3% of the world pie,' HP's Vice-President for Consumer Products and Mobile Business Group in the Asia-Pacific region, Chin-Teik SEE, told CNET.com.au at the company's 'magical mobility launch' event in Hong Kong last week."
Are going to think like that 3G will never happen :)
-Mark
Is the logical application of 3G bandwidth really streaming video? Maybe if you are the operator charging per packet!
The logical application of higher bandwidth on mobile phones is just an extension of current phone capabilities. Namely, increased mail functionality like graphics and graphical icons, and music downloads. In the business sphere, it makes sense to utilize that bandwidth for file transfers from one mobile phone to another.
But streaming video wasn't ever really high on anyone's list of MUST HAVE functionality. At least not on the user side.
2007 is only ten months away.
really 867993
Karma schkarma
I see ads for this everywhere, but I've never seen ANYONE making use of this service. I don't even know when I would if I wanted to. My phone is for talking to people with and maybe SMS. I don't use the internet functionality because the rates are insane.
Telcos don't get it. Provide bandwidth, and let people build services that run on that bandwidth. Being greedy with the apps.. means you get to put a great big 3G waste of money in your pipe (and smoke it).
..don't panic
The US cellphone market ( and most of the Canadian one as well) is now so irrelevant to the world market, that it really does not matter.
CDMA, TDMA, but not GSM for the most part.
Sure, we have a couple of GSM providers, but on an alien frequency (1900).
Add to that the greed of the N. American phone and cellphone providers, and not much in the way of progress is likely to happen here.
So, 3G will slowly push ahead in Asia, where all the tech now is, Europe will follow, and that's all folks.
In the meantime tech like WIMAX will progress, people will soon have portables using that or similar, VoIP on wireless will take off, and pretty soon cell phones as a separate device for talking (only) will become obsolete.
Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
There has been ALOT of hype about 3G... We all (well most of us) own a cellphone. There has been numerous polls relating to consumers watching TV/streams on their phones... and most are not interested (its too late at night to dig those polls up). .. Everyone swears WIFI is the shit.. sure if you like being strapped to a starbucks table. Open that bandwidth up to your consumers who live on the road, if i want to watch TV/streams, ill do it through my data cable...
IMHO its a waste of bandwidth. Instead of offering ESPN live feeds (a dull "yay") pass that bandwidth so its actually useable.. I'm forced to use a sierra cord on the road.. (verizon) and the speeds are just... not there.. more like a typical dial up connection (tops out at 128kbs)
Just my 2 cents.. Have a good nite.
-- I Dont Deserve A Sig I Have Bad Karma
Put it this way: the music industry promised us that CDs would bring cheaper music. The phone people haven't even hinted as much. I think "no" would be a safe assumption.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Do these morons really think I want to pay them to watch 160x120 videos of the black eyed peas on my phone? This is not the killer app you are looking for!
Telcos don't get it. Provide bandwidth, and let people build services that run on that bandwidth.
No, actually they do get it. A one way ticket to obsolescence is just being a bandwidth provider. Ask any mid-level dialup ISP from the 90s how they're doing today now that Comcast and SBC have deployed broadband. Where do you think wireless providers will be if someone actually deploys wi-fi throughout a city, or a new technology comes along that provides 5mbit download speeds anywhere?
That's why every wireless provider... scratch that... every media provider of any kind... is trying to bring added value content to the consumer. Ringtones, portable video, SMS: these are all services desperately trying to avoid being just another bandwidth provider. What do you think all of those DSL deals with Yahoo, or Comcast ON-Demand is all about? Bandwidth always gets cheaper until it becomes commoditized. Telcos have to stay ahead of that curve and becomes content providers. So when someone else says they can get a faster line than Comcast to your house, you'll say "Aww, but it doesn't have On-Demand?"
THAT is the point of VCast and every other lame attempt to avoid becoming just pure bandwidth providers.
"not yet viable?" hmm... tell that to my Motorola A835 (Three Network Australia) c.2004, which is dated but still working fine, video and all.
The two major GSM operators in the US, T-Mobile and Cingular, are at different stages and have different policies. T-Mobile is rolling out EDGE (technically 3G, but relatively slow. It's IDSL to UMTS/EVDO's ADSL), because it's incremental to GSM. It seems to be in most major areas, from my experience. T-Mobile's pricing for EDGE is the same as for GPRS - free for a theoretically port blocked service (SSH, HTTP, and HTTPS work fine), $20 a month for a non-blocked service (behind NAT, or restricted to a certain number of connections, none of which are incoming, your choice, though), plus the price of a regular monthy talk plan.
Cingular is rolling out a variant of UMTS (and has EDGE pretty much everywhere too), albeit on wierd frequencies because the FCC hasn't yet finished the work on freeing the relevent frequencies. This is less of a problem with the CDMA2000 systems, largely because nobody buys an IS95 phone and expects it to work outside of the US anyway (it will in a few areas, but not many.) What Cingular hasn't done yet is start to really market their UMTS based services, whereas Sprint and Verizon both are doing so. Cingular's unlimited service is relatively expensive ($80, IIRC), but it is here, it's rolled out to a significant part of the country, and I suspect they're not marketing it yet because they really don't know what people would want to use it for.
In short, HP's talking out of its arse. 3G, in various forms, is available across most parts of America, with both the world wide open standard UMTS (3GSM), and Qualcomm's proprietary system IS-95 (CDMA2000), well supported. HP might be waiting for everyone in the US to agree on a particular standard, but they're going to lose if they do. 3G will probably never settle down on a particular technology, even Cingular didn't go right for "regular" UMTS, going for HSDPA from the start. Meanwhile WiMax will become increasingly competitive too. If that's HP's reason, they've just announced their long-term withdrawl from relevence.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.